In our next blog, we’ll look at how the Bishops explain their view of the nature and interpretation of Scripture. But just before we get there, I did want to raise a metaphorical eyebrow at the appearance of Augustine in the discussion. It was in relation to the question of how we interpret the Bible, and Bishop Mike alludes to a principle Augustine lays down in ‘On Christian Doctrine’ (1:36.40), ‘Whoever then thinks that he (sic) understands the Holy Scriptures or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this two-fold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought’. Augustine seems likely to be the source for the ‘goods of marriage’ language that the Bishops use in their videos too, but we’ll look at that in another post.
For Augustine, this idea of our growing in ‘double-love’ was a goal of Bible study, and through it he was rooting our interpreting of Scripture in the realm of practical discipleship. The Spirit had inspired the Bible for a purpose, which includes ‘training in righteousness’ (II Tim.3:16). The Spirit’s work in us corresponds to that purpose, and if our engagement with the God-breathed Word doesn’t result in our growth into Christ-likeness, then, to put it bluntly: we’re doing it wrong. One of Augustine’s most beautiful insights is the idea of spiritual maturity as an experiencing of correctly-ordered and correctly-directed loves. To live well is to love well (1:27, Now he is a man (sic) of just and holy life who … keeps his affections under strict control, so that he neither loves what he ought not to love, not fails to love what he ought to love, nor loves that more which ought to be loved less…) .
This is part of what the Spirit wants to achieve in us through our study of Scripture. Elsewhere in ‘On Christian Teaching’, Augustine deals with what we might call the mechanics of how to interpret the Bible, but here the goal of Biblical interpretation (or at least one of them) is in view. The dangers of getting occasional passages ‘wrong’ is mitigated by an overall interpretation of Scripture that keeps us generally on track, rather like a hiker who ends up at the right destination even though they got lost on part of the journey (On Christian Doctrine, 1:36.41). Only when we are in the New Creation, and love is complete in us, will have no further need of the Bible (On Christian Doctrine 1:39). Until then we are bound to a desperate need of that Book, and should submit gladly to it.
Which of course, all raises the question as to whether Augustine would have been comfortable being enlisted to support the idea that the Church should bless those in a same-sex relationship, or marriage; and further, whether he would rally to advocate a change to the Law of the Church to allow for ‘equal marriage’. Would Augustine have seen this as a genuine interpretation of the Bible, pointing to a rightly ordered love, as the Bishops seem to imply? Would he allow that a correct interpretation of the Bible could possibly allow for such a conclusion? I suspect we know the answer to that question, but let’s ponder it nonetheless.
Anyone who has read Augustine might feel there is rather too much insight into the ancient Bishop’s engaging with the question of sex and marriage. Certainly he is pretty open about his own disordered and chaotic sexual history, and his ongoing struggles for his vision of purity. His relationship with his sexuality was clearly something that caused him intense spiritual angst, and at times, significant confusion, and emotional pain. As a Christian, later in life, Augustine saw his sexuality as perhaps the last great obstacle to his total devotion to the Lord. On the whole, he seems rather negative about the whole thing, and generally, Augustine is not considered particularly reliable in his counsel on the matter of sexuality and marriage per se. It’s widely recognised that he falls short of the ‘whole counsel of God’ on the subject, likely over-correcting as a result of struggling with a residual dualism, conflating sex and promiscuity, and wrestling with his own proverbial demons. All of which makes him a strange source for a discussion on the subject.
But whatever we make of his own marked preference for celibacy (though he did defend the legitimacy of marriage at a time when others were calling the whole institution into question), there can be no doubt that Augustine would have fundamentally rejected the idea of same sex marriage; and along with the consistent testimony of the Early Church Fathers, would have rejected all same sex sexual activity, whether in the context of a recognised relationship or not (see e.g. Confessions 3:8:15). Without any doubt, Bishop Augustine saw the only legitimate ‘outlet’ for sexual activity to be within the covenantal (and indeed sacramental) institution of marriage. And by that, Augustine meant marriage between a husband and wife.
‘The first natural bond of human society, therefore, is that of husband and wife. God did not create them as separate individuals and bring them together as persons of a different race, but he created one from the other, making the side, from which the woman was taken and formed, a sign of the strength of their union’.
He argued that marriage cannot be redefined by the Church, primarily because it is instituted ‘externally’. In other words, it is designed by God, and we aren’t at liberty to reconstitute it in line with any given cultural expectation (although to be fair, Augustine developed this argument in relation to polygamy, arguing that marriage as between one husband and one wife … ‘is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, what was made by the Divine Being Himself’ On Marr.1:10).
Critical reflection on the insights of Augustine would lead us in a very different direction to the capitulation to culture we are witnessing in the Church of England. It might not take us to pseudo-monasticism and functionality we find in Augustine, but it will take us some considerable distance from the assumptions and outworkings of the Bishops Proposals. Augustine unpacked the relationship between our sexual hunger and idolatry. The act of sexual intercourse cannot be decoupled from Holy Matrimony, because it speaks so powerfully of the act of vulnerability and self-giving that constitutes covenantal union and worship. When sexual desire is disordered (to use Augustine’s categories) and where sexual activity transgresses in any direction, the good and wise boundaries determined by the God who created it, to that extent it comes to speak of a misdirected doxological impulse.
Which is what makes this conflict that is currently ravaging the Church of England so deeply divisive and so dangerously dissentious. It is being presented as something innocuous: simply providing some liturgy that can be used (if so wished, and with no compulsion) to bless those who have entered into a civil marriage. But beneath such inoffensive language rages a storm that threatens to tear the Church from her deepest theological moorings and indeed, her devotion to Christ. This is why so many (on both sides) see the stakes as so high, and in part what makes the Bishops’ suggestion that we can walk together, maintaining the unity of the Church so dangerously inadequate.
But in the midst of all this we do find ourselves oddly in agreement with Bishop Martin’s comment that this is a moment reminiscent of the conflicts of the sixteenth century Reformation, in which the Church of England was forged. The Reformation was, of course, an Augustinian renewal movement. And it challenged the idea of celibacy (for priests et al) that Augustine, amongst others, gave the lie to. The Church of England mandates us to reflect critically on tradition in the light of Scripture (e.g. Art.21). Augustine got that one wrong. On that point, we can see with the benefit of 1500 year’s hindsight that he was out of step with Scripture. Luther, the Augustinian monk, undestood this, and would not be moved from the Bible’s teaching. As he famously resolved at the Diet of Worms:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures and by clear reason (for I do not trust in the pope or councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.
So in a way, the fact that Augustine would not approve of being implicated in the Bishops’ position isn’t finally the point. Everything hinges - as it should do in the Church of England - on what the Bible teaches. To this we turn in our next blog.
all citations from Augustine, On Christian Doctrine are from NPNF, Vol.2, ed. Schaff
for the quote about ‘the natural bond of human society’, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, vol. I.9, Marriage and Virginity, ed. and trans. David G. Hunter (New York: New City Press, 1999), 33.
